The idea of a Donald Trump presidency has me musing about what we were supposed to learn in school. We were taught that capitalism (the force that always wore the white hat) was good because the invisible hand of competition ensured that consumers always had choice and low prices while good businesspersons made money. What capitalism did not need was government getting in the way. Capitalism was good when left unfettered.

Socialism was generally painted in a negative light because it was such a close relative to communism. And communism was that force that spread red ink all over the world as it emanated from the Soviet Union and flowed every direction but north. It would envelop us unless we stopped it. So even if socialism was a system that was designed to put the common good above individual profit, it received short shrift because of the company that it kept.

How things have changed. Russia (the distilled version of the old Soviet Union) is now very much in favor with Donald Trump. In fact, he and Vladimir Putin must be BFFs on some hidden Facebook page. In the 1950s, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said, “we will bury you” to the Americans. It seems that Putin is silently saying “we will co-opt you” as he manipulates our cyber system and invites American businesses like ExxonMobil to do some heavy lifting in Russia, with Putin always having the phrase “nationalize it” going through his mind.

I remember some fifty years ago taking a course in college called “Business-Government Relations.” I was excited about taking it because in my naiveté, I thought that no one ever connected to two and it would be interesting to see how some professor might explain whatever relationship existed.

I think that I learned better than any previous high school history course that there was constant tension in America between business and government. For most of the first half of our nation’s history, business had been able to run free in whatever fashion it wanted to, whether it was taking land from Native-Americans, hiring workers for pittance pay and with little regard for safety, and the creation of monopolies being just fine because Darwin had already taught us of the genius of survival of the fittest.

But concern over monopolies grew at the end of the 19^th Century and Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that put a curb on some of the unfettered capitalist practices.

As the 20^th Century opened, the Progressive Era began with President Theodore Roosevelt. More progressive legislation was passed in the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Then we had FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. All of these eras brought us reasonable restraints upon runaway Capitalism.

The dialogue that we are not having now is what principles should guide the relations between businesses and government. It is de rigueur for businesses to ask various levels of government for tax breaks, subsidies, regulation wavers and anything else that can lower their cost of doing business. It is truly a free market system for businesses as they can shop from country to country, state to state, metropolitan area to metropolitan area, municipal tax authority to municipal tax authority to get the best deal. It is truly a race to the bottom for all levels of government to see who will give the most to expectant businesses.

Trump clearly wants to bring us back to more of an unfettered capitalism. He proposed Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, is opposed to most of his bureau’s regulations regarding wages, safety, and union organizing. He envisions his main constituency becoming robots rather than human beings in the labor force.

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt does not accept climate change and seems comfortable with businesses not having to curb their activities because some scientists think that emissions from fossil fuels causes climate change.

Trump and other Republicans railed through the campaign complaining about regulations without ever asking the question of why we have them. From the pure capitalist’s point of view, they only exist to hamper businesses. There was a time when Republicans said that we have to get rid of “bad regulations” but now it seems like all regulations are on the chopping block.

Democrats are not always perfect on these issues, but at least they recognize that worker safety, environmental considerations, consumer safety and assurance of competition are all considerations to be weighed against the interests of any single corporation or industry.

Lyndon Johnson used to say, “Let us reason together.” He actually meant it. By the way, what did Donald Trump learn at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business? Was the word “balance” ever uttered?

Is that why “unbalanced” is one of the best ways to describe his administration?

The post With Trump, is there a line between business and government? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Jeremy Corbyn, elected by a landslide to lead Britain’s Labour Party, has for his entire 32 years in politics held fast to the socialist ideals of old Labour. His humane platform spoke to a country weary of the neoliberal policies of Britain’s “New Labour Party,” the party of corporatists Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In a reaction to those policies, the party elected Corbyn, the most left-wing leader in its history. Corbyn was a 200-1 outsider when the three-month contest began, but he won with 60% of the vote, trouncing his three rivals.

The New Labour Party is similar to our Democratic Party in that it rejected its socialist, trade union roots in favor of serving corporate and bank interests. Under both parties, citizens have experienced destroyed social protections, gutted industries, financial deregulation, the off-shoring of good jobs, the destruction of trade unions, speculative bubbles, the encouragement of consumption on credit, the privatization of public assets, the impoverishment of workers and the middle class, and escalating income and wealth inequality.

The BBC reported on Corbyn’s victory in the UK, which represents a stunning rebuke of Labour’s corporate/bank driven policies:

The left-winger, who has spent his entire 32-year career in the Commons on the backbenches, promised to fight for a more tolerant and inclusive Britain—and to tackle “grotesque levels of inequality in our society”.

He said the leadership campaign “showed our party and our movement, passionate, democratic, diverse, united and absolutely determined in our quest for a decent and better society that is possible for all”.

“They are fed up with the inequality, the injustice, the unnecessary poverty. All those issues have brought people in, in a spirit of hope and optimism.”

Corbyn’s courage, integrity and consistency over the years won him the confidence of an electorate suffering from austerity measures enacted to preserve the wealth of the elite. The British get the connection between corporate owned political parties and economic inequality. Americans are beginning to get the message.

In his foreign policy, Corbyn has fearlessly confronted militarism in all forms. He has called out Israel’s war crimes against the Palestinians, and questions the post cold war role of NATO, which has expanded its powers to better serve corporate and banking interests.

Corbyn’s bold foreign policy

• Conduct negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah
• Try Israel’s leaders for war crimes against the Palestinians
• Support the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel.
• Stop arms sales to Israel
• Scrap Britain’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (similar to the U.S. Patriot Act)
• Have a serious debate about the powers of NATO, its need for democratic accountability, and its questionable global expansion
• Enact unilateral nuclear disarmament and eliminate UK’s nuclear weapons system.
• Oppose British military intervention in Syria
• Demand Saudi Arabia stop funding and supporting the Islamic State.
• Hold talks with the leaders of warring factions in Iraq and Afghanistan to end the conflicts.

Corbyn on the necessity to unravel imperialist wars in the middle east:

There is no solution to the killing and abuse of human rights that involves yet more Western military action. Ultimately there has to be a political solution in the region which bombing by NATO forces cannot bring about.

The drama of the killings and advances by Isis in the past few weeks is yet another result of the Bush-Blair war on terror since 2001.

The victims of these wars are the refugees and those driven from their homes and the thousands of unknown civilians who have died and will continue to die in the region.

The “winners” are inevitably the arms manufacturers and those who gain from the natural resources of the region.

Corbyn’s domestic policy, more bold than Bernie’s

• Significantly increase taxes on the wealthy
• End unfair corporate tax breaks
• Cap wages for corporate executives to fight “grotesque levels of inequality”
• Enact widespread rent control to stop “social cleansing” caused by gentrification
• Enact “quantitative easing for people” by investing in housing, energy and other infrastructure projects
• Create a new national investment bank to encourage growth and reduce the deficit.
• Create a sanctuary in the Antarctic to prevent mining and oil drilling
• End fracking
• Build renewable energy based on solar and wind
• Support “global regulation” to prevent the export of carbon products
• Stop attempts to privatize the universal health care system (the National Health Service)
• Abolish the British monarchy
• Nationalize energy companies
• Re-nationalize the post office and the rail service
• Create a National Education Service to provide free universal education—day care through university—to be funded by corporate taxation
• Abolish charter schools
• End the tax-exempt status of even the elite private schools.
• Bring back robust government funding for the arts
• Reverse government cuts that gutted the BBC
• Halt the government’s closure of domestic violence centers for women
• Fight discrimination against women in the workplace
• Strengthen laws against sexual harassment and sexual assault

John Halle at Counterpunch summed up Corbyn’s victory:

The 1% percent will use any means necessary to maintain their boots on our necks and their hands in our pockets.

If there’s any lesson which living history should have taught us, it’s that.

But the Corbyn victory is now one of many indications that we can fight back and win.

The post UK’s Labour Party elects socialist leader Jeremy Corbyn appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A new CNN / ORC poll just revealed that the majority of Americans want Congress to reject the nuclear deal with Iran that the Obama Administration negotiated. This is a shift from April, 2015 when the majority favored approval of the deal.

It might be farcical that the American people are asked their views on the deal; it’s very complicated and hardly anyone has read it. On the other hand, we’re all entitled to engage in “gut politics” in which we intuitively make judgments about whether or not we can trust an individual or a policy.

The problem with the second approach, the “gut approach,” is that we are more susceptible to emotional appeals, particularly when they are blasted upon us by the electronic media. No sooner had Secretary of State John Kerry concluded the arduous negotiations with the Iranians and five allies than right-wing organizations began saturating the American airwaves with fear-mongering ads that as always, present only partial information and a lot of disinformation.

We have previously written about how the nuclear deal is somewhat similar to the fast-track consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that President Obama narrowly shepherded through Congress. It’s complicated and does not lend itself to easy consideration. However, a fundamental difference between the two is who the opponents of each is.

In the case of the TPP, those who opposed the President’s stance were primarily his traditional supporters, workers, labor unions, environmental groups, consumer groups, and progressives in general. In the case of the Iran nuclear deal, those opposed are mostly Republicans, most vehemently those who have sworn to do whatever they can to undermine virtually anything that he supports. These people are bankrolled to the hilt and can roll out one ad after another to scare Americans about the Iran deal. Those who opposed the TPP were of limited means and also somewhat reluctant to dumb down the conversation with 30-second fear pieces.

While I am not a nuclear scientist and cannot personally vouch for the scientific veracity of the agreement, I am pleased that one of the top American negotiators was Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, former professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at MIT. He and most other scientists who understand nuclear physics support the deal. This is somewhat like climate change; those with the knowledge support reform; those who are largely ill-informed resist taking reasonable action to address a true threat.

It’s not just the United States that entered the deal with Iran, it’s also countries as disparate as Russia and China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. All but Germany are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. On July 20, 2015, the ten non-permanent members of the Council joined the permanent members to give unanimous endorsement of the agreement. Those countries are Angola, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Spain and Venezuela.

The fact that the agreement is supported by so many scientists and so many countries is reason, though not assurance, that it is a good deal. One of the problems that President Obama has had in trying to sell the deal is that neither he nor anyone else can guarantee or assure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons sometime in the future. What’s unfortunate is that opponents of the deal cannot accept the simple truth that there is no way to prove a negative; that something won’t happen. That leaves you with relying on the best information available. This is certainly a far shot better than Congress disapproving the deal and overriding his veto. Then whatever guarantee exists now will be destroyed and the likely outcome will be war with Iran and further isolation of the United States from other countries in the world.

Maybe supporters of the deal will have to take to the air waves, but as we all know, it’s difficult to overcome Republicans pandering to fear.

The post Iran Nuclear Deal too complicated for TV commercials appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In the 19^th Century, the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle coined the phrase “dismal science” for the field of economics. With the help of new insights and the world of computing power, it has become more accurate, like a physical science. However, there are still vast realms of uncertainty, and that certainly is true as we consider the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. Some call the TPP “NAFTA on steroids,” and if you like NAFTA, this must be good, and if you don’t then we have a problem.

The chief American proponent for the agreement is President Obama, but by listening to him you would hardly know it. He seems to speak about it only in secrecy, which is interesting because that is the way in which he wanted the U.S. Senate to consider the terms of the Partnership. The Senate complied last week by putting it on a “fast-track” for consideration, thereby forbidding amendments or filibuster. Debate and discussion will be quick and without nuance, resulting in an expeditious up or down vote. While that might be desirable in the case of a presidential nomination, it hardly seems appropriate for a complicated economic pact laced with unintended consequences.

Supporters and opponents of the Partnership agree that it will be a bonanza for multi-national corporations. If you believe in top-down or trickle-down economics, then “what’s good for business is good for the United States” (and by extension, the world). If you’re somewhat suspicious of the motives and practices of large multi-national corporations, then you have plenty of reason to pause in offering support for the Partnership.

For those who are not direct beneficiaries of the largesse of big business, there are two key questions to initially ask, (1) would the loss of wage gains of American workers be worth the savings for American consumers, and (2) on an ethical level, are we comfortable with American workers losing economic power while laborers in developing countries see their wages, and hence purchasing, power rise? There are other important considerations, such as what impact the TPP would have on American and global environmental issues, how would labor safety and working conditions be affected, and is the establishment of “private courts” really a fair way to settle international disputes?

Let’s take issue one, the loss and gains for American workers and consumers. The TPP should result in lower prices for American consumers, because it will make it easier for companies to produce goods and services and overseas, distant from prevailing American wages and salaries.

Should we be concerned about the prices that American consumers are paying? Below is a chart representing changes in the Consumer Price Index over the past three years, as calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In only one month over the past three years has inflation reached 3 percent, and this past February, we actually had deflation, prices falling.

The concerns of the American middle class and the poor have not been about high prices, rather about job opportunities, job security, and salaries that provide the necessary income to support a family. As shown so clearly by the Economic Policy Institute,

The pay of American workers was increasing along with productivity until the late 1970s. Since then, wages have essentially remained stagnant, while productivity has more than doubled. In other words, corporations are increasing their earnings at the expense of the sweat and intellectual prowess of their employees. More and more households now have two wage-earners, and in some cases, families are worse off now with two wage-earners than they were a generation ago with one. If one of the fundamental questions in considering the merits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is whether to look for ways to benefit the American worker rather than the American consumer, the evidence seems to be clear that consumers are doing well-enough, and workers are struggling. Workers need the help, and the TPP would not be good for them.

The second question is whether the increase in wages for workers in developing countries is more important than increasing wages for American workers. From a global and non-biased point of view, it may be better in the short run to favor the benefits that workers in developing countries would accrue with passage of the TPP. However, in virtually every developing country, it would be better to put laborers to work on projects needed in their countries, such as infrastructure, housing, schools, and health facilities. With the TPP, most of the products that they would produce would be for the benefit of foreigners. At the present time, it is fair to argue that helping American workers close the gap between their incomes and those of the wealthy is of greater importance. The United States still has a long way to go in creating more economic and political equality, and that should be our first order of business. As the U.S. does that, it can play a fundamental role in helping the economies of developing countries by providing them with the capital and skills to make their economies more self-reliant. Once that is done, they can participate more in international trade in a way that benefits their citizens as both workers and consumers.

The TPP is not an easy issue, but considering how it will furtively be considered by the U.S. Senate (and American people) and the damage that it will do to American workers, it seems that the prudent position would be to oppose the TPP. It’s a shame that, in this case, President Obama favors action that can be so detrimental to American workers.

For a quick, visual explanation of the problems with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, what this animation offered by  former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

The post Trying to look sympathetically at Trans-Pacific Partnership appeared first on Occasional Planet.

My Obamaphile friends may object, but it’s time to consider an uncomfortable fact about Obama: His indifference to the plight of labor unions in Wisconsin led to the rise of Scott Walker as a possible presidential candidate. According to Andrew Levine, the liberal Obamaphile view of Obama goes something like this:

From the moment that it became clear that his presidency would be rife with “disappointments” and sparing in achievements, Democrats have maintained that he means well and would be a force for good—were it not for pesky Republicans thwarting his every move.

Obamaphiles believe Obama is a progressive and therefore assume he is pro labor. When confronted with a fact that is incongruent with this view, their impulse is to a) not believe it, or b) imagine there are mitigating factors that “we simply can’t know,” or c) insist he can’t do (fill in the blank) because Republicans will attack him and/or use it against him.

Because the Obamaphile tendency is to always give him a pass on his record, they deprive themselves of the opportunity to develop a clear understanding how government and politics currently function. If we are to ever rebuild our democracy—and I’m not sure at this point we can—we have to take a clear-eyed look at the corrupting effect of money in government, especially at the presidential level. One way to do that is to compare a president’s rhetoric to his actual record.

Some uncomfortable facts

The elite, who pay massive sums to support candidates from both parties, are deeply hostile to labor unions. Case in point: Penny Pritzker, billionaire Obama bundler and recent cabinet appointee, has a strong anti-labor record, both at the Chicago public schools where she served on the school board, and at her family’s Hyatt hotel chain. Although Obama’s campaign rhetoric and statements while in office have been pro-labor, his record shows that he has served the interests of the anti-union elite—donors who will remain important to him after he leaves office.

In rousing campaign speeches Obama has vowed to walk picket lines in solidarity with workers, but Andrew Levine gives us a revealing account of Obama’s indifference to labor struggles (my emphasis in bold).

Like other Democrats in recent decades, Obama offers verbal support to organized labor around election time, while practicing malign neglect all the time. . . .

The state Democratic Party in Wisconsin did try to send Governor Scott Walker—the first of the pack to go after public sector unions—on his way. Obama did nothing to help them.

He must have thought that his time would be better spent chatting up wealthy donors than campaigning against a union buster.

This, anyway, is what he did in the days before the 2012 recall election that Walker won. When he could have been campaigning in African American neighborhoods in Milwaukee and Racine, where he might have done some good by getting potential Democratic voters to the polls, he chose instead to hobnob with the rich and heinous at fundraisers – for his own 2014 campaign — in Minnesota and Illinois.

Then, the night before the election, he sent out a tweet in support of the recall movement. Yippee!

Scott Walker emboldened by Obama’s indifference to union struggles

Emboldened by winning his recall election, and his success in destroying public sector unions, Walker went after all labor unions. The result? Once blue Wisconsin is now a “right to work” state. Liberals blame ALEC and the Koch brothers but Obama’s complete lack of support of Wisconsin union workers is equally, if not more to blame.

After the horse was out of the barn, and the bill was signed, Obama made this statement:

As its governor claims victory over working Americans, I’d encourage him to try and score a victory for working Americans — by taking meaningful action to raise their wages and offer them the security of paid leave,” Obama said, without mentioning Walker by name.

That’s how you give hardworking middle-class families a fair shot in the new economy — not by stripping their rights in the workplace, but by offering them all the tools they need to get ahead.

The fact that Obama was absent when he was needed belies his progressive-sounding rhetoric. A complacent, stenographic media fails the public by not asking why he didn’t show up in support of union workers in Wisconsin.

Obama supports union bashing corporate Dem Rahm Emanual

Levine goes on to contrast Obama’s indifference towards struggling pro-labor Democrats in Wisconsin with his lavish support for pro-corporate candidate for mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual, also known by local progressive opponents as “Mayor One Percent.”

Here’s a list of Rham Emanual’s accomplishments in his first term as mayor.

• He closed more than 50 public neighborhood schools, primarily in African American and Latino neighborhoods.
• He closed half of Chicago’s public mental health clinics, leaving many of the poorest and most in need without access to quality, affordable care.
• He attacked unions, including cutting pension benefits while using tax dollars for corporate subsidies.
• He refused to hire more police officers to combat the city’s crime problem, citing budgetary constraints.
• He broke his promise of openness, fighting efforts at increased transparency, ignoring community input, and micro-managing the press.

Although he couldn’t be bothered with Wisconsin labor struggles, Obama recently flew to Chicago, campaigned for Rahm, and even produced a radio ad for him. Even though Rahm had Obama’s backing and truckloads of “one percent” money, he failed to get 50% of the vote and will have to win a run-off election this April against progressive Jesus Garcia, whom the Chicago teacher’s union has endorsed. Levine continues:

Cronyism is not the only reason why Obama was there for Emanuel but AWOL in the struggle against Walker. Obama will sometimes support Democrats who run against genuine progressives. But when a Democrat runs against a rightwing miscreant, he can’t be bothered.

Indeed, he seems to relish sticking it to all of his core constituencies—organized labor most of all. Unions do yeoman service for the Democratic Party at election time. Even Scott Walker can figure out that the weaker unions are, the less service they are able to perform. But Obama doesn’t care. . . .

Walker could have been crushed in 2012. Because he wasn’t, Democrats may have to deal with him again before long. The man is a flyweight even by Republican standards, but, partly thanks to Obama’s indifference, he is now a serious contender for winning the GOP’s nomination in 2016.

If by some unlikely but not impossible course of events, Walker or someone similarly god-awful actually becomes America’s next President, Obama will have much to answer for.

The post Obama’s indifference to labor allowed the rise of Scott Walker appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Robert Lafollette, Jr. and Joseph McCarthy. Russ Feingold and Scott Walker. How could one state–Wisconsin–elect politicians with such divergent views?

No state east of New York has had such a strong tradition of progressive views in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Despite the strength that Senator Robert Lafollette, Jr. and his father brought to the progressive wing of the Republican Party in Wisconsin, it seemed to have little staying power. In what must be one of the greatest political turnarounds in American history, Lafollette was defeated in 1946 in the Republican primary by conservative witch-hunter Joseph McCarthy. Did the people of Wisconsin fall for McCarthy’s criticism of Lafollette not joining the military in World War II, even though Lafollette was 46-years old at the time of Pearl Harbor and was a sitting U.S. senator? What caused the citizens to take a quantum leap to the right?

In Wisconsin, the state capital and the state university are both in the same town, Madison. The university has traditionally been a hotbed of progressive thinking and action, and at times that has flowed into the halls of the Capitol. This trend has continued into the current decade, but not because progressives at the university and in state government have been strengthening one another. Rather, it is students and faculty at the University, joined by thousands of state public employees demonstrating under the Rotunda in Governor Scott Walker’s office building.

Scott Walker has gone from being an embattled governor to a presidential contender. He was elected governor in 2010. The Wisconsin state legislature was also part of the red wave that covered the United States that year. Walker and the legislature collaborated in 2011 to pass the “Wisconsin budget repair bill,” which significantly changed the collective bargaining process for most public employees. The goal of the bill was to eliminate the deficit in the state budget. But the means of doing so was a punch in the gut to tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens, who had fought to bring a healthy equilibrium to the management-worker struggle, which has been with us since the first cave person hired another to do some work.

Public employees in Wisconsin and elsewhere are among the most under-paid workers in our economy. They often have jobs that are dangerous, tedious, and in the case of teachers, require far more than 40 hours a week with no overtime pay. Nonetheless, they were the target of Walker and the legislature. The law has survived a variety of challenges, including a recall election of Governor Walker. He defeated the recall in 2012 and then won reelection in 2014. His reelection only emboldened him to try to take the once union-strong state into a “right to work [for less]” state. Removing the confusing slogans, Walker wants to weaken labor unions in Wisconsin by not requiring workers to pay union dues, even if the employees of a company are represented in bargaining by a union.

Walker’s efforts to weaken unions in the private and the public sector has now drawn the ire of the National Football League. The NFL is certainly not  a bastion of liberalism, but players in the league have been organized and protected by the NFL Players Association since 1970. Players in the NFL may be well-compensated, but their working conditions have been terrible, with their health always at risk. Only with the Players Association has their pension been protected.

The one NFL team in Wisconsin is the storied Green Bay Packers. There is no billionaire owner of the team, just a bunch of interested citizens in the town of Green Bay and elsewhere in Wisconsin. Players on the Packers have always been enthusiastic union supporters.

Moving beyond the field of football, the NFL Players Association Is now playing politics in Wisconsin.

The union released a strongly worded statement on February 25 denouncing the state’s proposed right-to-work legislation — which would prohibit businesses and unions from requiring workers to pay union dues — and reaffirming its solidarity “with the working families of Wisconsin and organized labor in their fight against current attacks against their right to stand together as a team.”

The statement, written by executive director DeMaurice Smith, pointed to the various support staff employed at the Green Bay Packers’ Lambeau Field who “will have their well being and livelihood jeopardized” by the law. It also acknowledged the “generations of skilled workers” who contribute to the state’s various industries and pointed to the law’s potentially devastating effects on wages and safety. Smith took direct shots at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who may be looking to boost his presidential aspirations at the expense of the state’s workers: “Governor Scott Walker may not value these vital employees, but as union members, we do.”

It would be a stretch to say that Scott Walker has been a demagogue of the ilk of Joe McCarthy. But Walker has successfully rallied Wisconsin citizens to undermine legislation that has protected them since the beginning of the progressive era in the late 19^th century. What’s happening in Wisconsin is similar to “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” in which citizens allow religiously formed social values to undermine their best economic interests. Yes, apparently this can happen too in Wisconsin, even with its strong university system and its proud progressive heritage.

This phenomenon stands as further evidence that the American body electorate is often more tuned into the politics of mythology and fear than to reason and their economic self-interest and that of their families and their neighbors. As I have said before, progressive education may be the best way to enlighten our citizenry.

The post Wisconsin shows how difficult it is to hold on to progressive gains appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker. —Franklin D. Roosevelt

Despite the Koch Brothers spending a fortune, last year, to defeat the proposed $15 minimum wage in the town of Seatac, Washington, a community around the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, it passed. In the run-up to the election, employers threatened layoffs and shutdowns, some because they believed they couldn’t make it paying workers a living wage. The Washington Post reported:

In July 2013, hotelier Scott Ostrander stood before the city council in SeaTac, Wash., pleading with the town not to adopt a $15 minimum wage.

“I am shaking here tonight because I am going to be forced to lay people off,” he said, according to an account in the Washington State Wire. “I’m going to take away their livelihood. That hurts. It really, really hurts. . . . And what I am going to have to do on Jan. 1 is to eliminate jobs, reduce hours — and as soon as hours are reduced, benefits are reduced.”

So what happened to Scott Ostrander’s Cedarbrook Lodge? Instead of folding, the hotel went ahead with a $16 million expansion, adding 63 rooms, a spa and more $15 per hour jobs.

Ostrander may have been crying crocodile tears to persuade people not to pass the wage increase—or he could have been genuine. It’s hard to say.

Like many business owners, he may think that the best management approach is the greed-driven, scarcity-based business model developed by Walmart, fast food chains, Amazon and other large companies who hire low-wage workers, and/or outsource labor to low wage countries The idea is: squeeze workers wages, push them to higher levels of productivity, and increase profits. It’s a short-sighted business model that creates disengaged, unenthusiastic workers and impoverished communities. In the end, nobody wins except a small minority of owners and stockholders.

The good news is that the experiment in Seatac has not only helped the small town turn around economically, but it has publically driven a stake into the lie of trickle-down economics. Increasing the minimum wage did not destroy businesses. On the contrary, it has helped businesses profit.

Nearby Seattle has also enacted a $15 minimum wage but, unlike Seatac, it will be seven years until it is fully in place. Yet even with that increased labor cost looming, businesses in the area are expanding. The Washington Post gave a few examples:

Tom Douglas, who runs fifteen restaurants in the Seattle area, warned that a higher minimum wage law being considered by Seattle would force the shutdown of a quarter of his restaurants. Instead, after the results in Seatac, he is opening five new restaurants to meet demand. And this story is being repeated, over and over again, throughout the region.

And this:

SeaTac-based Alaska Airlines, likewise, spent heavily to defeat the minimum wage, saying that it would harm competitiveness. Though the $15 wage for airport workers remains in court, Alaska Airlines, the dominant SeaTac carrier, apparently isn’t worried: Last month, the port authority moved forward with airport construction that could reach nearly $1 billion—to be paid for by the airlines.

And kudos to Togo sandwiches:

Likewise, the International Franchise Association has sued to block implementation of the law, arguing that nobody “in their right mind” would become a franchisee in Seattle. Yet Togo’s sandwiches, a franchise chain, is expanding into Seattle, saying the $15 wage isn’t a deterrent.

The $15 minimum wage is an idea that is catching on. On September 4, fast food workers all over the country took to the streets to demand a $15 per hour living wage. Most now make on average $9 per hour, and many of these jobs are part time.

Opponents of the $15 minimum wage claim that prices will have to go up, causing businesses to go under. The New York Times reports that Ken Jacobs, chairman of the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education, estimates a $15 per hour wage would probably cause a 10 percent price increase, but that higher pay would save restaurants money by reducing turnover and increasing productivity. Of course, nothing says a franchise owner has to raise prices. He or she could swallow some of the increases in exchange for a more stable and productive work force.

And, let’s not forget, raising the minimum wage would save the government the billions it now spends on public assistance for minimum wage workers at fast food restaurants and low-paying, big box stores like Walmart.

As little Seatac is showing, when people are allowed to make a living wage, communities and businesses thrive. People have a way to save, go to school, support themselves and their families—and they have money to spend, which in turn helps the economy. We’re the wealthiest nation on earth yet we have a growing population living in poverty. It’s time to address income inequality with a $15 minimum wage.

The post $15 minimum wage? Not a problem, says Seatac WA appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The financial meltdown of 2008 prompted many of us to look back to the decades after WWII for guidance—when Glass-Steagall kept banks in check, when labor unions had bargaining power, when a family could buy a house and live comfortably on a factory worker or a postal worker’s salary. Things seemed to be going well back then.

It was a time when the wealthy paid their fair share—the upper income tax bracket under Eisenhower was 90%. And there were jobs, and good paying ones—at least for some. In hindsight, it seemed like the “Golden Age” of American capitalism, when it seemed the economy worked for most people. The TV series “Leave it to Beaver,” which featured a generic, white, middle class family living in comfort in a generic, white suburb, furthered the myth that everyone in America could live a comfortable life if they showed up at work and paid their bills. For a large chunk of the population, of course, this wasn’t the case.

Banks and corporations constrained themselves after the Great Depression and WWII. Then, chomping at the bit to increase profits, they began to find ways to game the system. By the 70s, things started falling apart. Corporate globalization caused massive deindustrialization and the outsourcing of once good paying jobs, and the financial sector began its highjacking of the economy. The problem, the Golden Age myth would have us believe, was that bad capitalists and bad bankers took over what was really a good system.  If greed and bad behavior are held in check, the thinking goes, then capitalism really is the best economic system, synonymous with freedom, democracy and the American Way.

The myth vs. the reality of the post war era

In his recent article in ZCommunications, Paul Street debunks the “Golden Age” myth and sheds light on the failures of capitalism during this period.  He writes that, during the entire post war era, 10% of the population—20 million Americans—experienced no progress at all and deep poverty remained entrenched. Drawing on Judith Stein’s 2010 book, Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance during the 1970s, Street provides the following statistics:

As the nation spent billions to put astronauts on the moon, millions of Americans remained ill-clad, ill-fed, and ill-housed. The median U.S. family income in 1968 was $8,362, less than what the Bureau of Labor Statistics defined as a “modest but adequate” income for an urban family of four. The Bureau found that 30 percent of the nation’s working class families were living in poverty and another 30 percent were living under highly “austere” conditions.

U.S. industrial capitalism at its “golden” best was no land of milk and honey for millions of Americans on the wrong end of capital’s constant drive to extract value from working people, the broader community, and the Earth. Thanks to its rapacious and wasteful extraction of wealth from the natural environment, moreover, the profit system had already generated what numerous left and other U.S. environmentalists were already describing as an ecological crisis (see Barry Commoner’s haunting 1971 book The Closing Circle).

In support of the idea that the problems with capitalism are systemic, Street quotes Yale trained economist Richard Wolff:

As Wolff explained two years ago: “Historical and contemporary records overflow with blame variously heaped on the illegal acts of financiers, corporate executives, corrupt state officials, union leaders, and ‘organized crime’ for causing capitalism’s cycles and crises. . . Pinpointing ‘the bad guys’ perpetuates the ancient art of scape-goating, deflecting blame on convenient targets when in fact the system is the problem. Capitalist societies can continue to monitor, identify, regulate, and prosecute economic misdeeds, but doing so never will prevent cycles and crises. Overcoming the systemic roots and nature of capitalist crises requires a change in the economic system.” (Wolff, Democracy at Work).

Can we change the American economic system?

Banks and corporations have no interest in doing so. Republican and Democratic politicians and government officials, most of whom serve their interests—and are rewarded handsomely for their efforts—have no interest in doing so. The American people, however, who continue to suffer the economic, social and ecological consequences of this rigged system, eventually, may want to try something different.

For starters, Wolff feels we can cure capitalism by bringing democracy to the workplace. “We would have stores, factories and offices, in which all the people who have to live with the results of what happens to that enterprise, participate in deciding how it works.” He recommends moving from the traditional top down, corporation—that squeezes workers in order to funnel money to CEOs, shareholders, and Wall Street banks—to cooperatives, where income is more equitably shared, and where decisions about what to produce are made democratically. Good news: there is already a strong cooperative presence in this country to build on.

As an answer to the current unemployment problem, if the private sector won’t provide jobs, Wolff says, then the government needs to do it—and he is talking 15 to 20 million jobs. The lion’s share of those jobs would address climate change through green infrastructure projects—building clean mass transportation, building green energy systems, retrofitting buildings, etc. This is a no-brainer, but vehemently opposed by a monied class that refuses to pay taxes to be used for the public good.

Wolff offers another solution for the unemployed.  He would do what Italy does. If you can get ten unemployed people together and start your own cooperative business, the Italian government gives all of you your unemployment benefits in a lump sum payment to fund your venture.

To see more of Richard Wolff, and hear more of his ideas, check out his appearances on Bill Moyers & Company here and here.

“Free market” capitalism (which relies heavily on a corporate nanny state) has brought us American imperialism, endless war, Orwellian government surveillance of our private communications, and life threatening climate change. It’s time liberals and progressives realize capitalism isn’t the only game in town. There are ways to organize an economy so that it serves the interest of all, not just the most aggressive and avaricious among us. We can start by learning more about the Nordic democratic socialist model, which provides a good standard of living for everyone in those countries, and expanding the democratic, cooperative workplace here at home. We need to shift our consciousness from believing a competitive economy—in which everyone is supposed to have (but in reality doesn’t have) a shot at success— is the best economy, to knowing that a more humane, peaceful economy—in which everyone has his or her basic needs met, and economic activity is channelled for the public good—is a recipe for saving ourselves and the planet.

The post America’s not-so “Golden Age” (1945-1971) appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This is the best summary of the not-so-hidden agenda of the corporate class to weaken the tiny bit of power the working class still has.  Robert Reich explains in 2 min. 15 sec. what the rest of us have been writing whole essays about for years.  Until we get this story out, the majority of Americans who depend on a paycheck will continue to lose buying power.  It’s not a “conspiracy” if it’s true !!

The post Robert Reich: The war on the poor and working class, in 2 min., 15 sec. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Biographer and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin has written biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. As she looked to a new project, she realized that she had tremendous interest in the progressive movement at the turn of the 19^th century. She thereupon wrote her widely-acclaimed book, The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism.

For contemporary progressives, the book is a remarkable refresher course on what the original progressives in our country were like. Unlike those of a century ago, many current progressives are very tentative in stepping forward. With individuals like Barack Obama, this is certainly understandable; the political climate is rather forbidding for anyone who wants to advance a real progressive agenda. There are obvious exceptions, most particularly Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. But in the early 1900s, American citizens elected Theodore Roosevelt as president, a charismatic long-time practitioner of progressive politics and the William Howard Taft, a more subdued man, but still progressive in his beliefs. Mind you, America did this just prior to women’s suffrage (1920), which certainly would have provided far more votes in favor of a liberal agenda.

One of the key pieces of legislation in the progressive era was the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The ICC was actually passed in 1887 during the first term of President Glover Cleveland. The Commission’s mandate and its rulings have been key to a number of progressive laws including civil rights, transportation, safe food, and licensing for safe pharmaceuticals.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a regulatory agency in the United States created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The agency’s original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies. The Commission was the first independent regulatory body (or so-called Fourth Branch), as well as the first agency to regulate big business in the U.S.

The ICC served as a model for later regulatory efforts. Unlike, for example, state medical boards, the Interstate Commerce Commissioners and their staffs were full-time regulators who could have no economic ties to the industries they regulated. At the federal level, agencies patterned after the ICC included the Federal Trade Commission (1914), the Federal Communications Commission (1934), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (1934), the National Labor Relations Board (1935), the Civil Aeronautics Board (1940), Postal Regulatory Commission (1970) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (1975). In recent decades

Unfortunately, Congress dissolved the Interstate Commerce Commission, effective the first day of 1996, but its legacy includes a number of other regulatory authorities. Most importantly, it clarified the meaning of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the United States Congress shall have power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.” The “among the several states” is the key wording that permits the federal government to implement and enforce civil rights laws such as banning discrimination in hotels and restaurants (because they engage in interstate commerce in getting their supplies, etc.). It is one of the key clauses in allowing the federal government to monitor and adjust state voting laws that discriminate against individual or classes of individuals.

There are so many things that we can learn from the Interstate Commerce Commission of 1887 and the progressive movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Perhaps the most important lesson is that progressive ideas can become the norm. If there had not been a break between Teddy Roosevelt and W.H. Taft in 1912, it’s quite possible that (a) the Great Depression might have not have been so severe in the U.S., and (b) more needed progressive legislation could have been passed. We in the present can work to keep what President Obama has started and follow it with more bold progressive ideas. Perhaps the key point is to minimize internal disagreements. Unfortunately that’s difficult for the more cerebral of the two parties. But we can try.

The post Resurging interest in Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Movement appeared first on Occasional Planet.